Partly allowed

Parmeshwar Pandey and Ors. v. State

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2013CRA/464/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh reconsidered the conviction for murder following a sudden family quarrel. The Court held that despite the appellants returning with weapons, the incident fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC set aside; appellants convicted under Sections 304 Part-1/34 IPC and sentenced to seven years and seven months.

Parmeshwar Pandey and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

^i^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATT8SGARH. BILASPUR

¶3

Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri SuniS Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J J.

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1998

¶5

Parmeshwar & Another

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now The State of Chhattisgarh)

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

For consideration

¶10

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶11

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR

¶12

°> (3L^/-^Sd/o

¶13

R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶14

Post for Judgment : ^//^/2013

¶15

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶16

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶17

Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J J

¶18

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1998

¶19

APPELLANTS 1 Parmeshwar, son of Shri Premram, aged about 24 years 2 Raju alias Maheshwar, son of Shri Premram, aged about 28 years

¶20

Both residents of Village Kutra, Police Station Pamgarh, Tehsil Janjgir, District Bilaspur

¶21

Versus

¶22

RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now^{theStateof Chhattisgarh)}

¶23

(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

¶24

Appearance:

¶25

Mrs. Savita Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.

¶26

Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

{Z .d^.2013)

¶29

Following judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶30

Sunil KumarSinha.J.

¶31

(1) Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27th of January, 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 311/95 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, the appellants/accused have filed this appeal. By the impugned judgment, they have been convicted u/Ss 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶32

Criminal Apoeal No. 464 of 1998

¶33

(2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

¶34

2.1 The appellants are real brothers. Their house was situated by the side of the house of deceased- Sonau in village Kutra. On 28.6.1995, the deceased and his family members were observing some Pooja in their house. Babulal (PW-4), maternal uncle of the deceased, was also present in their house. Other guests were also present. All took their meals, however, Babulal (PW-4) and Sonau (deceased) did not take the meal as they were quarrelling with Rambai (PW-1), mother of the deceased, on some family affairs. Appellant- Parmeshwar (A-1) came there and tried to pacify. When Parmeshwar (A-1) was pacifying the quarrel, Sonau (deceased) said that it was their family matter and he should not intervene. On this, Parmeshwar (A-1) slapped Babulal (PW-4). Thereafter Sonau (deceased) became annoyed and started shouting upon Parmeshwar (A-1), as to why he slapped his maternal uncle. A quarrel begun between them. The allegations are that during the quarrel, Parmeshwar (A-1) went to his house and came with his brother, appellant- Raju @ Maheshwar (A-2). Parmeshwar (A-1) was holding farsa and Raju (A-2) was holding spear. Both assaulted Sanau (deceased) who sustained 4 incised injuries a.id succumbed to those injuries. On internal examination, it was found by Dr. D.C. Chaudhary (PW-8) that there were injuries over liver and kidney which caused death on account of shock and haemorrhage . The postmortem report is Ex.-P/11.

¶35

2.2 The incident was witnessed by Rambai (PW-1), Chhatram (PW-2), Bhuribai (PW-3) and Babulal (PW-4). Chhatram (PW-2) lodged First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.-P/1) and merg intimation (Ex.-P/2).

¶36

2.3 Babulal (PW-4) completely turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Bhuribai (PW-3) though turned hostile, but supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. The evidence of Rambai (PW-1) and Chhatram (PW-2) remained intact. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of

¶37

Criminal Apoeal No. 464 of 1998

¶38

these witnesses and convicted & sentenced the appellants as above.

¶39

Hence thisappeal.

¶40

(3) We have heard counsel for the parties.

¶41

(4) Mrs. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. She has also not disputed the involvement of the appellants. However, she has argued that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/Ss 302/34 IPC would not be made out and the appellants would be liable for punishment under some lesser Section preferably Part-1 or Part-llofSection3041PC.

¶42

On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate (5) appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments supporting the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

¶43

(6) We have carefully gone through the evidence of Rambai (PW-1), Chhatram (PW-2), Bhuribai (PW-3) and Babulal (PW-4). Except Babulal (PW-4), all other witnesses have stated that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants in the above manner by farsa and spear. They have also stated about the injuries sustained by him. The evidence of the above eye-witnesses was du ly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. D.C. Chaudhary (PW-8) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found his death to be homicidal on account of above injuries. Therefore, it was established by the above evidence that the appellants had assaulted the deceased in the above manner and the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶44

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1998

¶45

(7) Now we shall consider the main argument advanced by Mrs. Tiwari. She has citedmany decisions about applicability of Section 300 Exception 4 IPC.

¶46

(8) In Ramiit and Others -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh. (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1386, occurrence took place consequent to sudden quarrel and exchange of hotwords over bullocks damaging the crops. It was argued that it could not be stated to be a case of sudden quarrel because the accused persons after the quarrel went inside and came back with arms. PWs accepted that while the exchange of hot words and quarrel was continuing, immediately i.e. in less than two and three minutes the accused came back with arms and assaulted the deceased resulting his death. The conviction was altered from 302 read with Section 149 to 304 Part-1 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶47

In Ravindra Shalik Naik and Others -Vs- State of Maharashtra, (9)

¶48

(2009) 12 SCC 257, a sudden quarrel and fight arose when accused party's bundle of cotton/grass hit the roof of complainant causing damage to the roof. Complainant's husband had started quarrel. Father-in-law of the complainant intervened for stopping the quarrel. The accused persons went to their home and came back to the spot with axe, knife and gupti and inflicted injuries on the head and abdomen of the deceased (father-in-law of the complainant) and the complainant. The father-in-law died on account of injuries sustained by him. The Supreme Court held that it was a case falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and conviction was awarded under Part-1 of Section 304 IPC.

¶49

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1998

¶50

(10) In the instant case, on 28.6.1995, the relatives of the deceased were invited for Pooja and lunch in the house of the deceased. The Pooja was performed and thereafter the relatives had taken lunch. However on some family dispute, the deceased and his maternal uncle, Babulal (PW4), did not take lunch and started quarreling with Rambai (PW-1), mother of the deceased. Chhatram (PW-2), uncle of the deceased, was also present. Appellant-Parmeshwar (A-1), whose house was adjacent to the house of the deceased, came there to pacify the quarrel. It comes in the evidence of Chhatram (PW-2) that while Parmeshwar (A-1) was trying to pacify, the deceased told him that he should not come between them as it was their family matter. It is in this quarrel, appellant- Parmeshwar (A-1) then slapped Babulal (PW-4). The deceased, started shouting on Parmeshwar (A-1) as to why he slapped his maternal uncle. It was also admitted that on this behaviour of the deceased, Parmeshwar (A-1) became enraged and said that 1 am coming and thereafter he came with his brother, Raju @ Maheshwar (A-2) and assaulted the deceased in the above manner.

¶51

(11) Mrs. Tiwari has argued that it was a sudden quarrel in which the deceased was assaulted by the appellants, however, Mr. Shukla has argued that it could not be stated to be a sudden quarrel because Parmeshwar (A-1), after the quarrel went inside the house and came back with the arms along with his brother, Raju @ Maheshwar (A-2).

¶52

(12) Rambai (PW-1) is mother of the deceased. She admitted, in para-7, that there was no previous enmity or dispute between the appellants and the deceased. The overall evidence would show that Parmeshwar (A-1),

¶53

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1998

¶54

after hearing the quarrel in the house of his neighbour (deceased), has gone for pacification where his suggestions were opposed by the deceased saying that it was their family matter and during this quarrel, on some intervention by Babulal (PW-4), he (PW-4) was slapped by Parmeshwar (A-1) due to which the deceased became angry and started shouting upon them and within a very short period of this event , appellant- Parmeshwar (A-1) went to his house and came with the weapons along with his brother, Raju @ Maheshwar (A-2). Thus it was a case in which sudden quarrel which has begun had continued and during the quarrel the appellants came there and attacked the deceased.

¶55

(13) We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/Ss 302/34 IPC would not be made out and the appellants would be liable for punishment under Section 304 Part-1 IPC.

¶56

¶57

(14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants u/Ss 302/34 IPC are set-aside. Instead thereof, they are convicted for commission of culpable homicidenot amounting to murder and punished u/Ss 304 Part-1/34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone which comes about 7 years, 7 months (without remission). It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶58

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶59

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶60

vatti

Parmeshwar Pandey and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Pandey and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makelu Ram Vs State

Jogeshwar Prasad Sahu Vs Mu.Sahesrin @ Sahetrin Bai and Ors.

Kumari Nisha Pandey Anors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur Vs Shri Vijay Kumar Puri

Krishna Chandra Yadav Vs Smt.shantoshi Bai Yadav

Vidya Devi Sharma Vs State of Cg and Others